What economic and moral system would you design
if you did not know your own position in this system? That was the question that our group tackled on Thursday, and the question that the philosopher John Rawls tried to answer.
Rawls envisioned a thought experiment, "The Original Position." If people were limited by a "veil of ignorance" (a state that strips you of your own identity and its prejudices, but you are still equipped with ability to think and choose rationally), Rawls believed that these people would design society to be based upon two principles: the Liberty Principle (basic human freedoms) and the Difference Principle (basic economic equality).
Our group latched onto the idea of the Equality Principle. Jakes offered the observation that if you asked a rich person and a poor person how wealth should be distributed, you would two very different answers. Dr. Oliver furthered this line of thought by posing the question: How would you decide on topics such as marriage equality if you didn't know you whether you were straight or gay?
This then transitioned into a discussion of skills/talents. Rawls believed that these are based upon chance, and should not be rewarded unfairly. For example, a baseball player making millions each year (...or academic scholarships?). Michele stressed that though skill/talents are often based in luck, success still requires hard work. She offered that instead of equal reward, society should be based upon equal opportunity. Jake and Matthew were cautious about this, stating the impossibility of providing true equal opportunity for everyone.
FQ: T/F Rawls' Principle of Difference was a principle concerning societal equality.
DQ: Singer believed that morality is based the idea of consistency. Do you think that moral guidelines are consistent, despite the specific situation?
This is a short video I found that talks about the disagreement of John Rawls and Robert Nozick. It seems to come from a conservative background, but it offers an interesting insight into Rawls' value of equality, one that I was trying to voice during our discussion.
(PS: Sorry for the delay, Group 3.)
Rawls envisioned a thought experiment, "The Original Position." If people were limited by a "veil of ignorance" (a state that strips you of your own identity and its prejudices, but you are still equipped with ability to think and choose rationally), Rawls believed that these people would design society to be based upon two principles: the Liberty Principle (basic human freedoms) and the Difference Principle (basic economic equality).
Our group latched onto the idea of the Equality Principle. Jakes offered the observation that if you asked a rich person and a poor person how wealth should be distributed, you would two very different answers. Dr. Oliver furthered this line of thought by posing the question: How would you decide on topics such as marriage equality if you didn't know you whether you were straight or gay?
This then transitioned into a discussion of skills/talents. Rawls believed that these are based upon chance, and should not be rewarded unfairly. For example, a baseball player making millions each year (...or academic scholarships?). Michele stressed that though skill/talents are often based in luck, success still requires hard work. She offered that instead of equal reward, society should be based upon equal opportunity. Jake and Matthew were cautious about this, stating the impossibility of providing true equal opportunity for everyone.
FQ: T/F Rawls' Principle of Difference was a principle concerning societal equality.
DQ: Singer believed that morality is based the idea of consistency. Do you think that moral guidelines are consistent, despite the specific situation?
This is a short video I found that talks about the disagreement of John Rawls and Robert Nozick. It seems to come from a conservative background, but it offers an interesting insight into Rawls' value of equality, one that I was trying to voice during our discussion.
(PS: Sorry for the delay, Group 3.)
Ha ha, it's okay Nate, if this last week's post was up to me, I wouldn't even have known what to post.
ReplyDeleteI do like the video, it brought up a lot of interesting contrasts and comparisons between these two conflicting views on the justice of life. I think we all would be a little selfish in reconstructing society to our own whims, but Rawls brought up a good point in removing bias from selection. I often wonder if people who are opponents of gay marriage and civic equality would feel the same if they themselves were gay, ha ha. It's a shame policy makers and civilians don't all have to take philosophy and have to "try on a different pair of glasses". I think Rawls would've loved this idea, because it makes you think of life through other perspectives in a way that helps remove prejudice from your opinion.
And as you mentioned, I have thought over what Michelle said, and I find myself agreeing with her more and more. Yes, some people have natural gifts in life that allow them to excel at certain things, but if we all were the same without any natural talents at anything, life would be pretty boring. It would be hard to know what career you wanted to persue if you weren't better or worse at anything; furthermore even people with natural talents have to hone these gifts through hard work, practice, and perseverance.
DQ: Do you think that people with natural gifts are unfairly advantageous at success or can hard work and dedication overcome one's natural shortcomings?
FQ: What philosopher is an animal activist and a vegetarian?
I love the idea of equal opportunity but, as Jake and Matthew were, am cautious about. I feel like, even in a perfect world, equal opportunity wouldn't exist. To me, it's one of those things that society should always be pushing for and hoping to achieve even if it is unattainable.
ReplyDeleteI think that those given more talents/money are expected to give more.All the discussion I was thinking of the year of jubilee. But anyways, those with more money, per say like Bill Gates are expected to give more, who gives millions away. However, a poor women with two copper coins is giving the same gift. Long as we give away our talents/money that we have available we are doing right. So instead of a socialistic society, we should focus on becoming an altruistic society.
ReplyDeleteFQ:What philosopher wanted to "blank slate" the people?
DQ:Is there anything wrong with gaining success based on natural talents?